Thursday, October 13, 2011

Humanitarian Intervention ... no way

Under the aegis of Nobel Peace laureate Obama, the predator drone president, warmongers have revived their "humanitarian intervention" narrative to augment the tattered "terror war" theme that's been employed to absolve unlawful aggression for the past decade.

Their "responsibility to protect" is propaganda to promote war under the guise of noblesse oblige. But the ploy fell apart at the UN last week, when China and Russia exercised their veto powers to defeat a Western backed resolution that could have been used to launch a Libya-style assault on Syria.

This prompted an outburst from US ambassador Susan Rice, who declared the Council had "utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge", then stormed from the chamber. She later claimed Washington was "outraged" by opposition to the resolution, even though the US routinely vetos UN resolutions critical of Israel. In fact, the US holds the world record for vetoing UN resolutions.

Having witnessed the way the US and its NATO allies used Resolution 1973 to mercilessly pound Libya for the last seven months, Russia and China finally took a stand against the "philosophy of confrontation", as Russian ambassador Churkin put it. Perhaps they suspect the real agenda is more about enriching the West's military industrial plutocracy.

UN Resolution 1973 authorized "all necessary measures" to protect civilians, but it did not authorize unlawful aggression for the purpose of regime change, which is what it was used for. While there is still some doubt about whether Qadaffi was actually killing civilians, there is now no doubt that Western military and intelligence operatives were in Libya fomenting the conflict, arming and supporting the rebels, bombing from air and sea, destroying infrastructure and killing countless civilians.

The entire campaign was a war crime from the start. Once again the UN was used as a vehicle to further US hegemonic ambitions, with Resolution 1973 providing a thin veneer of legitimacy. Unilaterally, the US claims the right to change regimes it doesn't like, because, as Hillary Clinton proudly crowed, "We chose to lead the world".

The defeat of the UN resolution condemning Syria won't deter Washington from its quest for war nor quell its belligerence, but it might just hinder the West's reckless rush into yet another costly and unnecessary conflict.